Aantal sets

[michel1981]

mijn mening is een goed training schema te maken,en dan om de 6 weken vernieuwen,spieren blijven prikkelen,om de 6 week.
dat werkt beste bij mij

[Been]

Komt het dan dat de 3e of meer set(s) niet meer 100% gecontroleerd uitgevoerd kan worden door vermoeidheid of doordat de spieren anders aangeproken worden en je meer bezig bent (in het kopje) met het afwerken van de set?

snap niet helemaal wat je bedoeld

[Been]

ik doe altijd 4 sets met 8 herhalingen,maak gewicht zo zwaar dat ik net de 8ste herhaaling kan maken!
werkt goed bij mij,maar bij ieder ander lichaam is dat verschillend

ik zou je willen advieseren dat ook is een week anders te doen al is het alleen maar uit proberen
een weekje 15 reps doen op hoger tempoe en heel korte rust

[Creabeest]

hier nog een link naar een artikel over Hans Kroon en als je een stukje naar onderen scrolt kom je wat tegen over de single set methode
Hans Kroon - Een schone bodybuilder spreekt zich uit

citaat uit de tekst :

"Kroon ontdekte jaren geleden het systeem van de single set, waarbij je per oefening slechts één set doet – opwarmsets niet meegerekend".

Opwarmsets niet meegerekend, betekent alsnog minimaal twee sets per oefening

[biosphera]

Hoe zwaar moet je de opwarmsets dan maken?

[Creabeest]

Zelf deed ik altijd 10 reps op 60% van mijn 1 rep max

[philosopher]

Weet niet of je het al eens gelezen hebt. Zo niet dan zou ik dat zeker is een keer doen

Work

It’s very interesting to see that no matter what Forum, Article, Website or Training Newsletter you receive there is always something about how many sets and reps should be used. Now since we’ve already hit the basics on Load we have to consider how many reps and how many sets of any load can we use, should we use.

So what has science seen using different work models? First let’s make sure we are all on the same page WORK as defined in physics (1) is Force X Displacement a scientific way of saying Work=Weight X Distance Moved. Putting this into a context we are interested in we can say Work = Load X Reps X Sets.

With that clarified let’s begin to look at what science tells us about what amount of work produces the most hypertrophy,

“One set, two sets, three sets, more?”

When looking into the work created during a set the first thing one must take account of is the load on the bar, now since it’s been already established that a load representing a relative value between 40-120% of one’s repetition maximum can create hypertrophy how does work play into this. Well, anyone who has ever lifted anything heavy repetitiously, knows that the heavier the object the fewer times you can lift it. This is because of the energy systems within our muscle (something we will get deeper into during our intermediate and advanced series of articles). Knowing this can help us distinguish the difference, possible causes, and how their interplay contributes to a hypertrophy stimulus.

One of the first studies mentioned here is one previously mentioned in our “Load” article. In this study Moss (2) looked at triceps brachii muscle mass ratio changes, using three differing loads, 90% of 1RM for 90% 1-RM for two repetitions, 35% 1-RM for seven repetitions, or 15% 1-RM for ten repetitions (each group performed 3-5 sets). Strangely, increases in triceps brachii muscle mass ratio were only seen in the 35% 1-RM group. At first this would leave one scratching their head. But, when the amount of work is computed, it’s apparent that increases in work, may be a potent stimulator of hypertrophy. Using an average of 4 sets and assuming the 1 RM for all groups averaged 50Lbs, the work for the 90% group was 360 (a simple arbitrary figure, one could use Ft Lbs or N-m but in order to compute this many variables are missing and it would take more detailed explanation than this article is intended for), for the 35% 1RM it was 490, for the 15% 1RM it was 300. So quite clearly the 35% had the highest work. In another study by Ostrowski (3) he found that two or three sets (9-12 RM) were superior to one set (9-12 RM) with regards to gains in triceps brachii muscle mass.

Just as what load contributes the most to hypertrophy, the amount of work needed is also highly debated. For example, The ACSM Stand on Progression in Weight Training (4) conclusions were so highly contested that several authors made comments on the ACSM’s stand. (5). What is interesting to note about all this is; of the 8 references cited (2,6-12) in the ACSM's stand, only 2 were designed to compare volume and resistance training adaptations (2,8). Of these only Moss (2) was designed to look at muscle mass change.

Our intent here is not to continue the debate concerning what amount of work is optimal and even though the ACSM’s Stand doesn’t seem to be justified, based on the references cited, it does make the assumption that the amount of work is important. With this mind, our next step was to look at several studies, that were looking for hypertrophy increases, comparing what amount of work was used.

As mentioned in our previous article Abe (13) used three sets to failure of 8–12 repetitions in untrained subjects and showed an increase in skeletal mass of 4.2 kg over 16 weeks. Ahtiainen (14) used five sets of ten RM and saw a 5.6% increase in muscle CSA in non-strength trained athletes during a 21-week strength training period. Sale (16) saw a 11% increase19 weeks using six sets of a leg press exercise (simultaneous hip and knee extension and ankle plantar flexion) on a weight machine, ensuring the last three sets were with the heaviest weight that could be used for 7-20 repetitions. Kadi (17) used four different resistance-training exercises for the legs: hack squat, incline leg press, knee extensions and hamstring curl. The exercises were performed in 4–5 sets of 6–12 repetitions, corresponding to 6–12 RM (repetition maximum). The area of muscle fibers increased by 6.7% at 30 days and by 17% at 90 days of resistance training.

A very interesting design by Anderson (15) shows us that manipulations in the variables of work output can still achieve marked hypertrophy. Anderson used a progressive model in which volume was adjusted based on load intensity. Although it seems rather complicated for most new trainees it does take into account that as the load is increased work can be maintained via reductions in volume. Even though the main study design was looking at myosin transformations (something we will discuss in “Intermediate and Advanced topics”) significant hypertrophy was observed for type II fibers (16%) after resistance training, whereas no significant hypertrophy was observed for type I fibers. Indicating that hypertrophy can happen with modal changes in volume as long as work level is maintained.

Research in women (18) show that they are not exceptions to the rule where the amount of work is a potent stimulator of hypertrophy. Hisaeda investigated the influence of two different modes of resistance training on muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) in females. Groups were randomly divided into groups. One group used of 4-5 sets of 15-20 RM (repetition maximum) with sufficient rest between sets, while the other used 8-9 sets of 4-6RM. At the end of training period muscle CSA was measured at 30, 50 and 70% of femur length. After training, the sum of the muscle CSA change had significantly increased in both groups: 3.3 +/- 0.7% for 15-20RM group 3.6 +/- 1.1% for 4-6RM group.

Looking at this body of work it seems pretty clear that adequate work would be necessary to increase the hypertrophic response to training. The volume used would be dependant on the load or the Intensity of 1RM. It appears that as long as the work output is matched that hypertrophy would increase independently among intensity used.

Although there are many studies that have looked at strength changes between different levels of volume, some show that a single is set is as effective as multiple sets some do not, when looking at studies where the design is either directly or indirectly looking for a hypertrophic response very few have used a low work output.

What are the implications in training? In order for muscle tissue to grow it is important to use an intensity (described in our “Load Article”) that would allow enough work to be performed no matter the training status of the individual. Naturally the training status would have a direct impact on the individual’s tolerance to work therefore one would need to manage the amount of work to their present conditioning.



1.)TIPPONS, P. Basic Technical Physics Second Edition ISBN 0-07-065013 pp 172

2.)MOSS, BM Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol 75:193-199, 1997

3.)OSTROWSKI, KJ. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal
output and muscular size and function. J Strength Cond Res 11:148-154, 1997

4.)American College of Sports Medicine. Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. Vol. 34, No.2, 2002, pp. 364–380.

5.)CARPINELLI, RN. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ACSM POSITION STAND ON RESISTANCE TRAINING: INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED TRAINING JEP Volume 7 Number 3 June 2004

6.)KRAEMER, W. J. Endocrine responses and adaptations to strength
training. In: Strength and Power in Sport, P. V. Komi (Ed.).

7.) KRAEMER, W. J. A series of studies—the physiological basis for
strength training in American football: fact over philosophy.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:131–142, 1997.

8.) KRAMER, J. B., M. H. STONE, H. S. O’BRYANT, et al. Effects of
single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume,
intensity, and variation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:143–147,
1997.

9.) MARX, J. O., N. A. RATAMESS, B. C. NINDL, et al. The effects of
single-set vs. periodized multiple-set resistance training on muscular
performance and hormonal concentrations in women. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 33:635–643, 2001.

10.) SHINOHARA, M., M. KOUZAKI, T. YOSHIHISA, and T. FUKUNAGA.
Efficacy of tourniquet ischemia for strength training with low
resistance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 77:189–191, 1998.

11.) SMITH, R. C., and O. M. RUTHERFORD. The role of metabolites in
strength training: I. A comparison of eccentric and concentric
contractions. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 71:332–336, 1995.

12.)ZATSIORSKY, V. Science and Practice of Strength Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995, pp. 60–65, 108–112.

13.)ABE, T. Whole body muscle hypertrophy from resistance training: distribution and total mass Br J Sports Med 2003;37:543-545

14.)AHTIAINEN, JP.. Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during strength training in strength-trained and untrained men.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Aug;89(6):555-63. Epub 2003 May 7.

15.)ANDERSEN J. L. Myosin heavy chain IIX overshooting in human skeletal muscle. Muscle and Nerve 23, 1095-1104

16.)SALE, DG. Hypertrophy without increased isometric strength after weight training.. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1992;64(1):51-5.

17.)KADI, F. The effects of heavy resistance training and detraining on satellite cells in human skeletal muscles. J Physiol. 2004 Aug 1;558(Pt 3):1005-12.

18.)HISAEDA, H. Influence of two different modes of resistance training in female subjects. Ergonomics. 1996 Jun;39(6):842-52.

[biosphera]

Zeer interessant stukje. Van welke site komt dat?

[philosopher]

Zeer interessant stukje. Van welke site komt dat?

Hypertrophy-research.com erg goede site met veel info.

[Posse]

dus wat de hele stukje tekst ons zegt is: maaktnie uit wat je nou precies doet, als je maar je spieren genoeg belast?
Klinkt opzich wel logisch, al lijkt het me moeilijk om in 1 setje je spieren genoeg te belasten...